I'm not sure why you're complicating things.Don't believe any twitterati..
In the ACC, the conference is assigned each school's right as necessary to meet the conference's obligation under the ESPN contract (wording in GOR).
If the ACC and ESPN agree on a contract modification that does not demand a program's participation as a requisite to meet the obligations of the conference to ESPN...the conference has no hold on that program's rights.
I'm not sure why you're complicating things.
The GOR can't be dissolved unless a certain number of schools agree to let the other schools go.
That's not going to happen anytime soon.
I'm curious, who do you believe has the authority to remove the requirement?L Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement....
The ESPN Agreement is the controlling document....remove the requirement of that program's participaion to meet the ESPN contract requirwments and the conference has no hold.
You're not explaining yourself very well.You are not understanding the GOR..
A school's rights are owned by the conferenve ONLY as necessary to meet the conract obligations of the conference's ESPN contract.
That is the GOR language...it doesn't matter a flip about the GOR being dissolved...it is the ESPN contract that is controlling in terms of whether a ptogram's rights are assigned to the conference.
Or ESPN. Contracts have two parties. At least outside of Florida…lord knows how things work there, but apparently according to FSU fans on the internet they can be changed unilaterally because they say so.You're not explaining yourself very well.
The conference is not going to change anything without the approval of conference members. Which means, nothing changes.
I believe this individual has posted on boards with several user names, including nebfanweenie, or something like that. He (or she) was always very pro Big Ten, which was fine, but then would turn into a troll each time he changed his user name.Who is this guy? The laundry guy at a B1G AD? The ex-Fox TV executive made clear that the conferences own the rights. why is this athletic dept employee making it seem as though that's not the case?
Forgive me. Too good not to share:
In exchange for bundles of money, people will do things like thisI definitely don’t understand GORs. But it surprises me that lawyers of universities would even think of letting their presidents sign a twenty year agreement without knowing the terms between the ACC and ESPN. Or any rationalizations that this is how this business done.
I find it completely mind-boggling that attorneys from several schools (the Mag 7) felt the need to engage in a covert operation to try to find out the terms of the agreement between the ACC and ESPN. Still shaking my head.
Forgive me. Too good not to share:
Yes we’ve talked about this. It is possible to shift FSU and Clemson to the SEC. It is not possible to move them to the B1G because ESPN would never agree. But you have to believe that a network that is aggressively laying people off and cutting costs, wants to pay double for the content of two schools that it already owns. The only way I see that is if CBS steps up to pay more to the SEC. Even then ESPN would be devaluing the ACC, I don’t see that.L Grant of Rights. Each of the Member Institutions hereby (a) irrevocably and exclusively grants to the Conference during the Term (as defined below) all rights (the "Rights") necessary for the Conference to perform the contractual obligations of the Conference expressly set forth in the ESPN Agreement....
The ESPN Agreement is the controlling document....remove the requirement of that program's participaion to meet the ESPN contract requirwments and the conference has no hold.
Or Fox can tell B1G to take those 2 schools from ESPN if they can get out of the GOR.Yes we’ve talked about this. It is possible to shift FSU and Clemson to the SEC. It is not possible to move them to the B1G because ESPN would never agree. But you have to believe that a network that is aggressively laying people off and cutting costs, wants to pay double for the content of two schools that it already owns. The only way I see that is if CBS steps up to pay more to the SEC. Even then ESPN would be devaluing the ACC, I don’t see that.
If FSU can come up with half a billion, ESPN would let them go. Hence the investment bank angle.
I definitely don’t understand GORs. But it surprises me that lawyers of universities would even think of letting their presidents sign a twenty year agreement without knowing the terms between the ACC and ESPN. Or any rationalizations that this is how this business done.
I find it completely mind-boggling that attorneys from several schools (the Mag 7) felt the need to engage in a covert operation to try to find out the terms of the agreement between the ACC and ESPN. Still shaking my head.
Couldn't agree more. It has already happened. UConn had to reinstate women's crew.There is probably going to be a lawsuit filed within 6 months to a year by a women’s team claiming that these conference realignment moves are a Title IX violation, and they are going to win.
It actually won’t be worth it for schools to fight it. Women are almost 60% of college students today and the Demographic Cliff is a year away. No school wants to be on the wrong side of this issue. The major conferences need to come up with a workaround on this issue, fast.
Couldn't agree more. It has already happened. UConn had to reinstate women's crew.
Football and Basketball not going anywhere but schools will cut track and field, lacrosse and other non revenue sports in order to comply.
At the time Swofford felt it was a brilliant move because a) it removed the fear of the ACC being raided by the big two and b) it put ND in a situation where it remaining independent in football was no longer a possibility, they would have to join the ACC in football.It’s amazing that when the gamed out the long term impact of the GOR that they didn’t see this outcome.
If the non-revenue men's sports are doing the same it would be difficult to argue that this is unfair treatment of the women participating in the schools NCAA sponsored sports. It is about equal treatment,That is not what I am saying, but thanks for making this political.
My point is that the Title IX violation is requiring women’s sports to travel 2000 miles for midweek games to accommodate a conference created for football. The simple solution is to break off football from other conference affiliations.